On Wednesday 31 March 2010 13:11:24 David Howells wrote:
> How about the attached patch instead?  I'd rather not make vmap() generally
> available in NOMMU mode since it can't be implemented in NOMMU mode.  Yes,
> vmap() can take a copy of the pages it is given, but you can't guarantee
> that's the right thing to do.  It's like a shared-writable mmap.
> 
> Instead, why not just override vmap() in firmware_class.c for the one
> instance where we know we're happy with this behaviour?

how about putting this implementation into like vmap_nommu() and only 
rewriting vmap() to vmap_nommu() when we know it's safe ?  such as this 
firmware case ?
-mike